Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OTITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life) (Conditional) (Nigeria) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  OTITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 54273/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 18339/19

  In Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001-IX the Court elaborated the relevant criteria which it would use in order to assess whether an expulsion measure was necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 18339/19

  In assessing whether an interference with a right protected by Article 8 was necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 113, ECHR 2003-X, and Boultif, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 47486/06

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 18339/19

  While it has consistently treated crimes of violence and drug-related offences as being at the most serious end of the criminal spectrum (see, for example, Maslov, cited above, § 85; A.W. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 47486/06, § 40, 12 January 2010; Dalia v. France, 19 February 1998, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 I; and Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, § 48, ECHR 1999 VIII), in Lukic v Germany, no, 25021/08, 20 September 2011 it accepted that multiple convictions for fraud were sufficient to outweigh the interests of a long-term resident alien who had been born in Germany and had spent his childhood and his youth there.

• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 41697/12

  KRASNIQI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 18339/19

  However, it has made it clear that where an offender is being deported as a consequence of a criminal offence, the deportation decision first and foremost concerns him (see Krasniqi v. Austria, no. 41697/12, § 48, 25 April 2017).
• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 41215/14

  NDIDI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 18339/19

  The only exception to this is where there are shown to be strong reasons for doing so (see Ndidi v. the United Kingdom, no. 41215/14, § 76, 14 September 2017; Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 25748/15, § 43, 16 May 2017; and Alam v. Denmark (dec.), no. 33809/15, § 35, 6 June 2017).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30441/09

  KÜLEKCI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 18339/19

  Moreover, he has submitted no other information to substantiate his integration (see, for example, Külekci v. Austria, no. 30441/09, § 49, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 77036/11

  SALEM v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 18339/19

  The applicant has not brought forward any arguments which would speak against the possibility of his family visiting him in Nigeria and staying in contact via telephone and the internet (see Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, § 81, 1 December 2016; see also Külekci, cited above, § 49).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 25021/08

  LUKIC v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 18339/19

  While it has consistently treated crimes of violence and drug-related offences as being at the most serious end of the criminal spectrum (see, for example, Maslov, cited above, § 85; A.W. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 47486/06, § 40, 12 January 2010; Dalia v. France, 19 February 1998, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 I; and Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, § 48, ECHR 1999 VIII), in Lukic v Germany, no, 25021/08, 20 September 2011 it accepted that multiple convictions for fraud were sufficient to outweigh the interests of a long-term resident alien who had been born in Germany and had spent his childhood and his youth there.
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  HAMESEVIC v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 18339/19

  The only exception to this is where there are shown to be strong reasons for doing so (see Ndidi v. the United Kingdom, no. 41215/14, § 76, 14 September 2017; Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 25748/15, § 43, 16 May 2017; and Alam v. Denmark (dec.), no. 33809/15, § 35, 6 June 2017).
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 33809/15

  ALAM v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 18339/19

  The only exception to this is where there are shown to be strong reasons for doing so (see Ndidi v. the United Kingdom, no. 41215/14, § 76, 14 September 2017; Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 25748/15, § 43, 16 May 2017; and Alam v. Denmark (dec.), no. 33809/15, § 35, 6 June 2017).
• EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 80343/17

  UNUANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.07.2023 - C-261/22

  Generalanwältin Capeta ist der Ansicht, dass die Vollstreckung eines gegen eine …

  Vgl. z. B. Urteil des EGMR, 27. September 2022, 0tite/Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2022:0927JUD001833919, § 39) (dort mit der Feststellung, dass die Vertragsstaaten einen gewissen Ermessensspielraum bei der Beurteilung der Frage hätten, ob ein Eingriff in ein durch Art. 8 EMRK geschütztes Recht in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft notwendig sei und in einem angemessenen Verhältnis zu dem verfolgten legitimen Ziel stehe).
• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 19632/20

  Z.A. v. IRELAND

  The Court has difficulty in accepting that the approach that was taken by the High Court either reflects or corresponds in substance to a sufficient degree to what is contemplated in the well-established case-law set out above (see Otite v. United Kingdom, no. 18339/19, §§ 44-45, 27 September 2022, and compare with Alleleh and Others v. Norway, no. 569/20, §§ 94-107, 23 June 2022).
• EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 57766/19

  LOUKILI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Where an applicant is being expelled as a consequence of a criminal offence, the Court has considered that this decision first and foremost concerns him or her and has accepted in the context of the balancing exercise under Article 8 of the Convention that the family's interests may be outweighed by other factors, including the seriousness of the offence (see Otite v. the United Kingdom, no. 18339/19, § 51, 27 September 2022).